Election

Attorney General Barr Says There Is No Evidence of Election Fraud that Would Have Changed Election Outcome

Either the AG is acknowledging reality, or he's joined the anti-Trump deep state conspiracy.

|

Michael Balsamo of the Associated Press reports:

In an interview with The Associated Press, Barr said U.S. attorneys and FBI agents have been working to follow up specific complaints and information they've received, but they've uncovered no evidence that would change the outcome of the election.

"To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have affected a different outcome in the election," Barr told the AP. . . .

"There's been one assertion that would be systemic fraud and that would be the claim that machines were programmed essentially to skew the election results. And the DHS and DOJ have looked into that, and so far, we haven't seen anything to substantiate that," Barr said. . . .

"Most claims of fraud are very particularized to a particular set of circumstances or actors or conduct. They are not systemic allegations and. And those have been run down; they are being run down," Barr said. "Some have been broad and potentially cover a few thousand votes. They have been followed up on."

These comments reflect what careful observers of the 2020 election have already concluded. The various viral claims of widespread voter fraud are bunk. The only think surprising about AG Barr's comments is that he is willing to contradict so directly the wild election frauds claim made by President Trump. While AG Barr may be willing to take the President's direction about what matters and which people to investigate, he is not wiling to make up facts or discredit the electoral process.

NEXT: Another problem with self-pardons

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Either the AG is acknowledging reality, or he’s joined the anti-Trump deep state conspiracy.”

    While I tend to agree, that it is highly unlikely that there was fraud on a scale sufficient to affect the outcome of the Presidential election, no, those aren’t the only two possibilities.

    1. Matthew, have you ever taken even an undergrad-level course in either statistics or quantitative research methods?

      It’s not possible to have the results that came from some of these states — starting with over 100% of those eligible to vote actually voting. (If you’ve ever “bounced” a check, you will understand how 100% is a finite limit…)

      You never will get 100% of people voting for one candidate, even if it is a labor union or something — someone (possibly not quite sober) will think it cute to write in “Mickey Mouse” or (more often) “Ben D’over” — It’ll happen — and didn’t.

      The late Tip O’Neil (D-MA) was famous for saying that “all politics is local” and you’re not going to get 405,000 voters who only vote for Biden but don’t vote for anyone else. Some of these people are going to care who gets elected dogcatcher — those races are relevant to them. (Mayor and local state rep moreso…)

      There’s more but the bottom line is that there are people on Death Row on less evidence than Team Trump has…

      1. If you start your premises with OAN facts your syllogism is going to be shaky.

        1. I mean, Dr. Ed is known for only one thing here at the VC, which is making up facts. But in this case it’s clear that he’s just incredibly gullible and believes things that dishonest people tell him.

          1. 1: Get a PACER accunt.
            2: Look up the filed suits.
            3: Then accuse yourself of making stuff up.

            And heaven forbid you take even an undergrad level course in either statistics or quantitative methods.

            1. Dr. Ed can’t read. I didn’t accuse him of making stuff up in this instance. The opposite: I said that while usually he makes stuff up, in this case he’s actually guilty of being very gullible and believing things that dishonest people tell him. And in response he says, “Oh yeah? Go look at what those dishonest people are saying.”

              With a nod to citing classes that he hasn’t taken.

              1. First there was no election fraud.

                Then there was no widespread election fraud.

                Then there was no widespread election fraud that changed the result.

              2. ““Oh yeah? Go look at what those dishonest people are saying.”

                Dishonest or not, look at what they are saying and evaluate it for yourself.

                “With a nod to citing classes that he hasn’t taken.”

                And SPSS which he has never used…

                1. Dishonest or not, look at what they are saying and evaluate it for yourself.

                  Exactly. There are no places where more than 100% of the voters cast votes, or 100% of the population cast votes for one candidate, or where everyone voted only for the top of the ticket.

                  (Hint: the affidavit that claimed that more than 100% of the voters cast votes was from a guy who mixed up Minnesota and Michigan.)

      2. Maybe you would care to actually present your evidence.

        Maybe the Trump team would like to present it in court. They haven’t yet. Wonder why?

        1. They are presenting evidence. It’s not hard to prove massive violations of election laws.

          Where they’re failing is that the courts don’t care if election laws were violated on a huge scale, and certainly don’t mean to allow any remedy.

          1. Yeah. Cause the remedy requested would have no basis in law i.e. illegal.

          2. The Trump team is not presenting evidence. To present evidence one must first file a complaint stating a claim upon which relief can be granted. Trump has not surmounted this initial hurdle.

          3. Go ahead and tell us which case(s) you are referring to? All I have seen is Trump team scrubbing allegations of fraud from complaints due to lack of evidence to support their case, and other cases getting dismissed for lack of evidence, among other causes.

          4. And Brett, the long-term damage of that will be to discredit the legitimacy of the courts and the legal profession.

          5. Except Brett defines massive violation of election laws as court cases about COVID he doesn’t agree with.

            1. Covid might be the excuse they used to violate election laws, but my conclusion they were violated is based on the fact the laws weren’t changed by the legislature, and weren’t complied with.

              Why they were violated, and whether they were violated, are two different questions. A ‘good’ excuse for breaking the law doesn’t mean it wasn’t broken.

              1. Judicial review is a thing that exists. It is not a violation of the law.

      3. And Dr. Ed buying into the conspiracy should be the final nail in the coffin.

        1. Because Dr. Ed wouldn’t know anything about something directly related to something he has a damn doctorate in…

          Bad data is bad data, be it bogus research results or these purported election returns. It’s not a conspiracy to point out things which aren’t statistically possible.

          Or likely — such as Civil War veterans voting in 2020. Think about that one for a minute…

          1. It’s not a conspiracy to point out things which aren’t statistically possible.

            True.

            In this case though, the “things which aren’t statistically possible” are lies. There are no locations where “over 100% of those eligible to vote actually voting” actually happened. The stories about that happening were all easily debunked lies.

            So that you still believe them, weeks later…

            Well, maybe your first sentence wasn’t sarcasm.

      4. Maybe I will regret this, but care to mention a specific city or county or whatever with 100% for Biden or with turnout higher than 100% of the eligible voters. Specific place and basis of citation, please.

  2. “No evidence” of fraud turned into no evidence of systemic fraud in an amount that would have changed the outcome has been found to date.

    I am glad they are investigating so we will actually know who did what and what the results were.

    1. Nothing has turned into anything. One case of fraud by a single voter somewhere would turn the statement of “no fraud” into a talking point for dishonest and reality challenged cultists. Writers are being careful to be exactly and pedantically correct, since pedanticism is the last refuge of GOP conspiratarians.

      1. Countering our false talking points with examples is pedantic.

        1. You’re doing it in this very thread just below this comment.

          Are you doing an impression of a right wing pedant? Bravo!

          1. Why not just be truthful instead of repeating false talking points?

    2. Trump’s thesis is very clearly that there is sufficient fraud to flip the election to him, dude.

      1. Yeah, Trump’s thesis is the one where he gets what he wants. So? Trump may very well be incorrect.

        That doesn’t mean all the talking points about “no evidence” are truthful.

        One of the reasons Trump’s style works is because the other side is consistently false and we tried countering it with civility over and over and over and the lying just got more pervasive. People got fed up with losers talking about “norms” as they saw their communities harmed and their rights taken away.

        Trump fought back and won instead of losing, proving that Trump-style is the way that works. Lesson learned. I hope you like the way you trained everyone to behave.

        1. One of the reasons Trump’s style works is because the other side is consistently false and we tried countering it with civility over and over and over and the lying just got more pervasive. People got fed up with losers talking about “norms” as they saw their communities harmed and their rights taken away.

          This is deranged.

          1. Biden saying Mitt Romney will “put you back in chains” is deranged. Noticing the derangement and remembering it is ordinary.

        2. So your strawman sucks, and you blame the other side for it.

          You’re well beyond logic now.

          1. No clue what you’re trying to say. Trump is made of straw? No. I think he is actually a flesh and blood man.

            I definitely blame the other side though. Everyone else wants to just go about their days living a life in a free country. It’s leftists who scheme and try to meddle in everything everyone else does.

        3. The left’s definition of “civility” and “norms” are “caving to everything we ask of importance.”

        4. Trump is certainly and provably correct in a number of assertions that he made in the embarrassing 46-minute rant. And the other examples of blatant falsehoods are legion. So your solution to overblown hyperbole “back in chains” (which is inappropriate, even shameful), is to double down on even more unhinged hyperbole and lying about actual facts like no President has ever lied about actual facts before? And it’s the other side, because turning up the volume on unfair hyperbole and lying is “what works”. You rewarded Trump, you and the others who rewarded him for that behavior trained everyone how to behave.

          (Don’t forget, while Mitt may have been the recipient of “back in chains”, he was also the purveyor of this comment that is both unfairly hyperbolic AND wrong as a matter of fact:

          There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.

          While the 47 percent non-tax-paying number is close to accurate when considering only federal income tax liability, they clearly didn’t “all” vote for Obama and don’t all vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate. Among net takers in many years: seniors, farmers, working poor families, Donald Trump, and various other constituencies that support the GOP to a greater or lesser extent, but which are hardly 100% Democratic. Don’t pretend overwrought rhetoric was a creation of “the Left”. And don’t pretend that what Trump is doing doesn’t go well beyond that. He is undermining the faith in American democracy of a large portion of his supporters and he is doing it intentionally for, among other things, personal monetary gain (on which he probably won’t pay taxes). This is what you wrought. Own it, at least.)

        5. Trump is certainly and provably incorrect in a number of assertions that he made in the embarrassing 46-minute rant. And the other examples of blatant falsehoods are legion. So your solution to overblown hyperbole “back in chains” (which is inappropriate, even shameful), is to double down on even more unhinged hyperbole and lying about actual facts like no President has ever lied about actual facts before? And it’s the other side, because turning up the volume on unfair hyperbole and lying is “what works”. You rewarded Trump, you and the others who rewarded him for that behavior trained everyone how to behave.

          (Don’t forget, while Mitt may have been the recipient of “back in chains”, he was also the purveyor of this comment that is both unfairly hyperbolic AND wrong as a matter of fact:

          There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.

          While the 47 percent non-tax-paying number is close to accurate when considering only federal income tax liability, they clearly didn’t “all” vote for Obama and don’t all vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate. Among net takers in many years: seniors, farmers, working poor families, Donald Trump, and various other constituencies that support the GOP to a greater or lesser extent, but which are hardly 100% Democratic. Don’t pretend overwrought rhetoric was a creation of “the Left”. And don’t pretend that what Trump is doing doesn’t go well beyond that. He is undermining the faith in American democracy of a large portion of his supporters and he is doing it intentionally for, among other things, personal monetary gain (on which he probably won’t pay taxes). This is what you wrought. Own it, at least.)

      2. No, more to put it into the House…

    3. Given that Kerr was fired for saying it was the most secure election ever, is it really surprising that Barr is trying to call-out as little of Trump’s bullshit as he can?

  3. I haven’t looked at the claims extensively, but one would hope that there is evidence that can rule out fraud, evidence that the counts were transparent, procedures were in place that makes fraud unlikely, etc.

    It would be much more effective to be able to show that the election was legitimate. Demonstrating that there is no evidence of fraud only proves that we don’t know whether there was fraud or not.

    1. You are asking to have a negative proven to you.

      Why aren’t you asking why no one has alleged massive fraud like this until Trump lost?

      1. To be fair, Trump, and the Trumpiest people were alleging widespread fraud and illegal voting before the election, in the 2018 election, the 2016 general election (which he won), and the 2016 Iowa caucuses (Trump accused Ted Cruz of rigging the caucus somehow (how you rig a caucus I have no idea).

        1. It appears that Mitt Romney actually won in 2012.

          Remember how they were expecting to????

          1. Yeah? And they were wrong. They didn’t win.

      2. “You are asking to have a negative proven to you.”

        Nope. I’m asking that it be shown that the election was legitimate. That shouldn’t be a problem in a functioning democracy.

        “Why aren’t you asking why no one has alleged massive fraud like this until Trump lost?”

        The Dems claimed the the 2016 election was illegitimate, to the point where two thirds of democrats thought Russians changed vote totals.

        1. How was that election shown to be legitimate?

          1. I didn’t say that it was.

            1. But the burden now is suddenly on Biden?

              1. The burden to show that the election is legitimate rests on those claiming it is legitimate. The burden to show that the election is fraudulent rests on those claiming that it is fraudulent.

                Pointing out that there is no evidence of “fraud that would have changed the outcome” only lets you claim that we don’t know if the election was legitimate.

                And yes, this is true of every election. If we want to claim that our elections are legitimate, we should focus on building a system where there is strong evidence of legitimately, and not just no evidence of fraud.

                1. “There’s no basis for believing that elections in this country are fair because, for all I know, they don’t meet my idiosyncratic and unarticulated standards.”

                2. The evidence that the election was legitimate is legion. There were poll watchers at every polling cite, the ballots were counted in ways that had internal and external checks, the vote totals from various jurisdictions were certified as accurate by people not involved in the campaigns and, in many cases, from the opposing party. These are all evidence of a legitimate election. Stop obtusely pretending there is no evidence of legitimacy. Now, to overcome the mountains of evidence of legitimacy (multiple non-partisan people attesting to the fairness and ensuring following of rules together with partisan poll watchers who have either affirmatively validated or not questioned the fairness in most US jurisdictions (and their silence is assent given their entire job was to speak up if/when they saw something improper), elected and appointed officials (often from the losing party) certifying to the accuracy and integrity of the results or otherwise providing factual support for that conclusion (and this would include Kerr and Barr, both Trump appointees), the burden is on people claiming illegitimacy to come up with evidence of illegitimacy. That they haven’t been able to produce a scintilla of evidence despite massive incentives to do so, that itself is further evidence that the election was legitimate.

                  That you continue to pretend there is yet no evidence one way or the other…..well, we knew you were just a troll any way.

            2. This is a weaselly way of avoiding the admission that, while you view the 2016 as legitimate despite the lack of any rigorous demonstration that it was and widespread (apparently) belief that it was not, you do not adhere to the same standard for 2020.

              1. Sigh. I haven’t claimed that the 2016 election was any more or less legitimate than the 2020 election.

                1. What about 2012? Or 1996? Or 1984? Or 1828?

                  I mean, if we quit our assumption of legitimacy, there’s fraud *everywhere*

                  1. “I mean, if we quit our assumption of legitimacy, there’s fraud *everywhere*”

                    ?? That’s a weird thing to say. Whether or not there’s fraud has nothing to do with our assumptions. That’s what makes them assumptions.

                    As I’ve said repeatedly, we shouldn’t merely ask people to assume that our elections are legitimate, we should be prepared to demonstrate that our procedures are robust enough to make fraud very unlikely. Why is that controversial?

                    1. […] we shouldn’t merely ask people to assume that our elections are legitimate, we should be prepared to demonstrate that our procedures are robust enough to make fraud very unlikely.

                      Oh yeah, that makes sense.

                      The problem is, there is an ever-growing number of Republican appointees, state officials, judges, and so-on who were actually involved in that demonstration, and have been saying “yeah, the safety was demonstrated”, and the reward they get for years of hard work is Trump calling them traitors and then they get death threats.

                      Why is that kind of bad-faith response not controversial to you?

                    2. Functionally, reality has a lot to do with our presumptions. Otherwise you’ll fall into some postmodernist nonsense and become unable to function.

                      Your logic, for instance, applies to every republic ever. So maybe rather than calling them all into question, you’re actually proving a too much in service of Trump’s unfounded accusations.

                    3. “Your logic, for instance, applies to every republic ever. So maybe rather than calling them all into question, you’re actually proving a too much in service of Trump’s unfounded accusations.”

                      Yes. Every republic ever should seek to demonstrate that its elections are legitimate, rather than simply asking people to assume that its elections are legitimate.

                      Your “logic”, which is that if we don’t assume that elections are legitimate then we have to admit that we don’t know if they are legitimate, is a non-sequitur. It’s not really logic.

                    4. “Why is that kind of bad-faith response not controversial to you?”

                      Trump’s bad-faith response is bad. That’s not controversial to me.

                    5. yeah, but we do that every year with lists of registered voters, various checks that only properly registered voters vote (which we know is at least somewhat effective because people who vote twice (like the Vegas Trump voter, get caught and convicted), there are poll watchers from both parties at every election site, the DOJ investigates allegations of fraud, Kerr’s cybersecurity unit investigated alleged irregularities and otherwise worked to produce safeguards to ensure it was secure and then Trump’s appointee said it was secure, and on and on and on. The fact that most of these indicia and proof of legitimacy are just background assumptions here in the US is one of our achievements, not a failure. You are playing into authoritarianism by claiming that, despite all these partisan and non-partisan checks on election integrity, there remains no evidence either for or against the legitimacy of any election from 1780 to 2020. Stop being a moron. Failing that, maybe just don’t post your more moronic thoughts.

    2. You’re smarter than this, TiP.

      1. Right back atcha, Sarcastro. You know that a claim of “no evidence of fraud” is insufficient to show that the election was fair. You just want to make people question their sense of reality.

        1. So what exactly are you looking for? And where have you seen it in previous elections?

          1. I pointed it out in my previous comment. If you want to be able to claim that the election is legitimate, you need to be able you argue that the system is secure enough to make fraud impossible or unlikely, not just that there’s no evidence of fraud.

            And I haven’t seen it in previous elections. It’s a long standing problem that is coming to a head because Trump is actually claiming fraud.

            1. Have you considered that…Trump might be an unusually insecure jackass?

              1. The left seems to be avid about projecting their jackassery onto Trump.

                1. You people are delusional.

                  Trump’s insecurity has been on full display for the entirety of his “Presidency.” You just can’t see it from your knees.

              2. “Have you considered that…Trump might be an unusually insecure jackass?”

                I’ve considered it, examined the evidence both for and against, (the latter didn’t take very long) and accepted it to be true.

                1. Because you’d remain polite & civil if subjected to the abuse he has been…

                  1. pathetic.

                  2. Are you alleging that he was abused as a kid by his parents or something? ’cause near as I can tell, he has never been “polite & civil”, so this abuse must have happened a long, long time ago.

            2. The burden of showing fraud is always on the proponent of the claim of fraud.

              1. Sure. If you can’t show that there’s fraud, you can’t say for certain that there’s fraud. All you can say is that there might be fraud.

                But if you want to claim that the election is legitimate, you need to be able to show that the votes are legit.

                I’m saying that we should focus on building a system where we can say that the election is legitimate.

                1. But if you want to claim that the election is legitimate, you need to be able to show that the votes are legit

                  Nope.

                  Assuming a process is proceeding regularly and normally is in fact the default, and doesn’t need to be proven.

                  You don’t get to point at any process and say ‘PROVE YOU ARE OPERATING LEGALLY AND NORMALLY’ unless that’s your job.

                  1. Sure, but then why can’t we see how the Dominion voting machines work?

                    Why is their source code a trade secret.why did so many states purchase software the controls a key function of their purpose not transparent? It runs on their machines. Nobody can steal it and use it on their machines, so no trade secret protection is rational, nor does it matter. As there is only one customer per state, no stat should buy this crap if its source code is secret.

                    Finally, without hand counting every ballot, instead of running the same ballots back through the same black box, we can’t know whether the results are correct and the election legitimate. This is the central problem.

                    Finally, IF there were illegal ballots, once their envelopes were discarded, there would be no way to prove legitimacy, nor illegitimacy. You can’t have proof of widespread fraud if you can’t prove whether the ballots were legal or not. Biden wins, but his win stinks to high heaven and will be forever tainted.

                    1. Because there is no proof anything happened. At all.

                    2. “Because there is no proof anything happened. At all.”

                      These are not the droids you’re looking for.

                    3. Pretty great jedi trick to work on all those Trump attorneys who despite all sorts of shortlived ridiculous election lawsuits are refusing to get near any kind of allegation of fraud.

                    4. jjsaz, you are right that the public can’t see the source code. Governments buy lots of commercial products that contain proprietary software, and use it for purposes that demand high security. There are a half dozen companies in the voting machine business so choosing not to expose their code to their competitors is not unusual. Also, government security experts don’t always agree that more openness is better, which is why you can’t see the source code for missile guidance systems either.

                      But that doesn’t mean that nobody outside the company can see it. The federal Election Assistance Commission operates a certification program for voting systems. If you follow that link you can find where various machines are used, their certification status, and documents describing the requirements and processes used by the independent certification labs. In particular, the section on Software Requirements says:

                      The requirements of this section are intended to ensure that voting system software is reliable, robust, testable, and maintainable. The requirements in this section also support system accuracy, logical correctness, privacy, security and integrity.

                      and

                      Compliance with the software requirements is assessed by several formal tests, including code examination.

                  2. “Assuming a process is proceeding regularly and normally is in fact the default, and doesn’t need to be proven.”

                    Faith, eh? You are certainly entitled to adhere to whatever religion you want, Sarcastro.

                    1. That’s not faith, it’s actually a pretty fundamental requirement to function. And a legal default.

                      Your cherry picking epistemology is trash.

                    2. “Your cherry picking epistemology is trash.”

                      How dare you sir!

                  3. Ummm, Sarcastr0 — why did Massachusetts have to throw out some 20,000 drug convictions because of problems with the drug labs?

                    1. Because the presumption was rebutted.

                      Presumptions are not inviolable truth, so quit strawmanning.

                    2. Like how most folks believe the bona fides of what a poster claims, but when you claim something people take it a bit differently.

                      Because the presumption of even normal levels of critical thinking has been rebutted when it comes to you.

                2. I’m saying that we should focus on building a system where we can say that the election is legitimate.

                  Sure.

                  A great many of the people that have been involved in exactly that are currently under the bus that Trump threw then under when they didn’t say what he wanted them to say.

                3. I’m saying that we should focus on building a system where we can say that the election is legitimate.

                  We can do that.

                  It is impossible to build a system where chuckleheads won’t whinge about cheating because chuckleheads gonna chucklehead.

                  Which is what we have here.

                  1. “It is impossible to build a system where chuckleheads won’t whinge about cheating because chuckleheads gonna chucklehead.”

                    Wouldn’t it be better to have an argument? Because if you can’t show that your election is fair, then the chuckleheads have a point.

              2. Maybe so but TIP’s point is still valid. Every state has procedures to insure election integrity (and every other government process as well). Those processes should be (and I suspect are) reviewed regularly to insure they are a) followed and b) sufficient. I would think it to the benefit of all to make those reviews public.

                1. Except in Pennsylvania, where the election integrity measures were not followed (Illegally opening mail-in ballots, illegally curing mail-in ballots, etc, mixing cured ballots with others, destroying the spoiled original ballots, etc) – but that’s OK, because the Justices kindly promised to start enforcing those laws next election.

                  Or Arizona, where a the automated signature machine machines had their sensitivity turned down below the manufacturer’s recommended minimum (so low, a crumpled piece of otherwise blank paper was deemed a match), but a judge declared it would take too long to hand-verify the signatures.

                  Or Georgia, where a judge stated that it didn’t matter that a non-poll worked walked into a counting room, tossed a bunch of ballots they weren’t allowed to have into a box they didn’t belong in, then ran away – none of that is proof that those are not valid ballots, therefore they must be counted.

            3. What you are asking for is nonsensical.

              Suppose I conduct an election and follow certain procedures which I believe prevent fraud and make the results accurate.

              Now you come along and claim massive fraud and ask me to prove the fraud didn’t happen. How am I supposed to do that other than describe my procedures? And why do you get to make that demand without any significant evidence that there was fraud?

              Your approach has no end point. Whatever I do you can go on claiming fraud and demanding more “proof.” It’s absurd.

              Trump has had plenty of opportunity, more than enough, to file claims and present credible evidence, not at press conferences but in court. He hasn’t done it.

              WTF do you want? Quit the cult.

              1. “Now you come along and claim massive fraud and ask me to prove the fraud didn’t happen. How am I supposed to do that other than describe my procedures?”

                Then that’s what you should do. And if you convince others that the procedures are robust enough to prevent fraud, then you win.

                But “no evidence of fraud” is not sufficient to show that the election is legitimate. This is basic logic, and the fact that I have to defend it with several posts demonstrates who is in the “cult”.

                1. But “no evidence of fraud” is not sufficient to show that the election is legitimate. This is basic logic, and the fact that I have to defend it with several posts demonstrates who is in the “cult”.

                  The “basic logic” at work here is a begged question. Why isn’t “no evidence of fraud” sufficient to show that an election is legitimate? Because a “legitimate election” just so happens to be an election where the possibility of fraud has been conclusively ruled out! Why is that what it means for an election to be “legitimate”? *crickets*

                  Elsewhere, you suggest the relevant standard isn’t even logical in nature – it’s rhetorical. A “legitimate election” is just an election that is broadly accepted by more people as “legitimate” than those who do not accept it as “legitimate.” But in that case, it’s not even about fraud any more – it’s about persuasion. Under that standard, your efforts here amount to nothing less than delegitimizing an election. The election is not “legitimate” or “illegitimate” prior to your efforts; it’s your efforts at persuasion (among others’) that will make it so.

                  So, uh, yeah – you were saying, about the “cult?”

                  1. “Because a “legitimate election” just so happens to be an election where the possibility of fraud has been conclusively ruled out!”

                    Well, or at least proved to be very difficult to carry out. Where are the stress tests of the system? The most recent such stress test I’m aware of is the 2013 NYC Department of Investigation stress test that had only 1 out of 63 in person fraudulent voters rejected at the polls. Given how mail in is probably orders of magnitude easier to carry out we would expect somewhere around 0% of such fraudulent ballots to even be rejected, let alone find a confirmation of the fraud in some sort of after the fact investigation.

              2. “Suppose I conduct an election and follow certain procedures which I believe prevent fraud and make the results accurate.”

                That’s an interesting hypothetical which has nothing to do with THIS election. You know, the election where Democrats went around systematically waiving legally mandated security measures and objecting to election observers being in a position to actually observe.

              3. “Suppose I conduct an election and follow certain procedures which I believe prevent fraud and make the results accurate”

                You belief is categorically insufficient.

                There is zero reason for any person who is not you to share your belief that your procedures prevent fraud if you can’t produce evidence that they prevent fraud.

                1. Matthew,

                  That makes no sense.

                  If you think there was fraud, show some evidence. Don’t just announce that you think the procedures aren’t good enough. Anybody can say that.

            4. All the recounts and audits show no differences from the original counts. So the counting was accurate. So which aspect of the election should we address next?

              1. I figure the counting WAS accurate. That’s too easy to check.

                The aspect we should be addressing is that, in multiple states, there were massive violations of election laws.

                Not changes to election laws, mind you. The laws remained as they were. Violations. Hard wired deadlines waived. Mandatory criteria for accepting or rejecting ballots, waived. Ballots that are only supposed to be sent to people who request them, sent indiscriminately to everybody on voter rolls known not to be well maintained. These violations of election laws accounted, in aggregate, for millions of ballots counted, which should legally have been discarded, or never issued.

                And all these illegal ballots got mixed in with the legal ones, to be recounted in any recount, and can never be separated again. The damage to the integrity of the election process was irreversible.

                Did these violations alter the outcome of the election? I think we’ll never know. But we do know that they weren’t legal.

                In local elections, when election laws are violated on a sufficient scale that it is impossible to determine who would have won the count of legal ballots, results are decertified. But the courts are not of a mind to do this in a Presidential election, with Trump being the one asking for it.

                Neither do they seem to have any interest in consequences for the people who broke the laws, the people who ordered the laws broken. (In fact, in many cases it was the courts themselves ordering the law broken, which apparently makes it alright, so far as courts are concerned.)

                So, we’re left with election laws that weren’t followed, and nothing will be done of it. In effect, we no longer HAVE election laws, merely election suggestions which don’t actually have to be followed if an important person directs they be violated.

                There are third world countries that are more careful about following election laws than the US. That should shame us.

                But Democrats seem to think, no harm, (Trump didn’t get reelected!) no foul. And are outraged that Republicans don’t share the sentiment.

                1. But Democrats seem to think, no harm, (Trump didn’t get reelected!) no foul. And are outraged that Republicans don’t share the sentiment.

                  Actually, intelligent people — Democrats and otherwise — think “Brett is a dishonest clown.” That is not how law works. (I would say you know better, but there’s no evidence to that effect.) What you describe is simply not a violation of the law, as people who actually know something about the law keep explaining to you. If one brings a challenge to a court and the court says that a particular rule either facially or as applied violates the constitution, and therefore the rule cannot be enforced, then nobody is violating the law by ignoring the rule; they are upholding the law. And guess who gets to decide that? Not Brett Bellmore. Judges.

                  As for “damage to the integrity of the election process,” counting a legitimate voter’s vote simply does not damage it. Here’s what’s an actual “illegal” ballot is: a vote cast by someone ineligible to vote, either because of some personal characteristic (wrong residence, felon whose voting rights haven’t been restored, underage, non-citizen, etc.) or because the person casting the vote isn’t who he or she purports to be. Or a vote that wasn’t cast by the deadline. Every other criterion is merely a method for limiting the ability of such illegal ballots to be cast, or a tool for making vote counting easier — not a meaningful requirement for its own sake. No ballot “should” be discarded unless there’s reason to believe it falls into one of those categories. It’s not a game or a sport, in which the rules matter for their own sake.

                  1. On this subject, talking to Brett is talking to a wall.

                  2. ” If one brings a challenge to a court and the court says that a particular rule either facially or as applied violates the constitution, and therefore the rule cannot be enforced, then nobody is violating the law by ignoring the rule; they are upholding the law. And guess who gets to decide that? Not Brett Bellmore. Judges.”

                    I suggest you go back and look at what the PA supreme court said, then. Because they said that it DIDN’T violate the constitution, either facially or as applied. They claimed they had the power to override the law.

                    1. Brett, your pedantry really shows you’ve got nothing.

                      They found that the Secretary’s actions were in compliance with the Constitution. That is the opposite of your ritualistic invocation of ‘it broke the law’.

                      “In light of the information contained in the USPS General Counsel’s Letter, the Secretary concludes that a temporary extension of the Election Code’s received-by deadline is necessary for the upcoming General Election to ensure a free and equal election as protected by Article I, Section 5 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.”

                    2. I suggest you go back and look at what the PA supreme court said, then. Because they said that it DIDN’T violate the constitution, either facially or as applied.

                      False. They said that it did violate the constitution as applied. People (including but not limited to me) have been trying to explain this to you for weeks.

        2. You know that a claim of “no evidence of fraud” is insufficient to show that the election was fair.

          No, that’s actually quite sufficient.

          1. “No, that’s actually quite sufficient.”

            Objectively false. TDS is a hell of a drug. It fucks up your basic logic.

            1. TIP, the presumption of regularity is not a logic fail – it’s a pretty deep part of our judicial system.

              1. “TIP, the presumption of regularity is not a logic fail – it’s a pretty deep part of our judicial system.”

                Perhaps you are confusing presumption with fact. Our judicial system quite rightly presumes someone in innocent– that is, in the absence of any information about whether or not someone is guilty, the legal system presumes that they are innocent. Of course, this results in treating many people who are guilty as if they are innocent.

                What you are arguing is that, in the absence of any information about whether or not an election is fair, we should believe that it is fair, and perhaps treat many fraudulent elections as if they were fair.

                This is indeed a logic fail. Just because we don’t know if an election is fair or not, doesn’t mean that we know that it is fair.

            2. Nope. Still true. An election is fair unless there’s evidence of fraud. There’s no evidence of fraud here. Therefore, this election was fair. QED.

              1. This is patently false. There is more than enough evidence that there was fraud. Was it enough to overturn an election? I don’t know. But ignoring all of the affidavits, testimony and hearings where people testified that they witnessed fraud doesn’t change the fact that yes, such evidence exists.

                You’ve gone from the realm of delusional to flat out dishonest at this point.

                1. Courts have seen the affidavits. They don’t hold up, as it turns out.

                2. “All the affidavits” do not allege fraud. They allege that someone made them stand too far away, or was rude to them, or that they saw a van parked near the building. A meeting in the lobby of a Holiday Inn Express is not a “hearing,” but they just rehash the same stuff anyway.

              2. “QED.”

                Your argument has a faulty premise.

              3. And I would just add, the presumption of fairness exists in the US because there are multiple checks and fail safes that rely both on non-partisan actors and on partisans from both sides to be present at critical stages. One of the reasons “no evidence of fraud” is evidence of legitimacy in the US is that we have multiple systems to catch fraud. That doesn’t mean there aren’t ways to subvert those systems, but it is always impossible to prove even the most rigorous fail-safe was not subverted somehow. TiP is pretending to evenhandedness, but there are piles of evidence of legitimacy and little to no evidence of any irregularities or fraud and no evidence of substantial irregularities or fraud.

                The presumption in the US is of legitimacy and there is lots of evidence this year, as every year, of legitimacy. TiP wants to pretend otherwise for unknown reasons. He’s a child. But if you come here often, you know that already. If you don’t, you can tell from his chosen moniker.

      2. No, he’s not. He’s exactly as smart as the nonsense he keeps posting.

      3. No, he isn’t.

    3. But of course there’s tons of evidence like this.

      The whole point of the canvassing process that states are wrapping up is to look for discrepancies in the process, using checks and balances that have been developed over decades.

      There were international observers who all agreed that the election was free and fair.

      As a result of the lawsuits, there’s been a fair amount of scrutiny into what actually transpired in the casting of votes as well as their tabulation.

      Secretaries of state and other election administrators from both parties agree that the election was conducted freely and fairly. Trump’s own cybersecurity lead said the election was secure.

      As Noscitur a sociis asks, what beyond all of these signals can you possibly be looking for?

      1. As Noscitur a sociis asks, what beyond all of these signals can you possibly be looking for?

        I mean, Trump (and his cultists) were pretty up-front, months ago, that they believed the only way he wouldn’t win was through fraud.

        It’s one of the few moments of honesty from them.

        Which is to say, they are not ultimately looking for a fair election. They just want an election that re-elects Trump. Fairness is, in their eyes, both insufficient and unnecessary.

    4. The burden of pleading and proving fraud is always on the party claiming fraud. Trump has been failing at the pleading stage.

  4. Well played, Attorney General Barr, well played.

    Who knew or could have predicated? All along Attorney General Barr was just playing the role of dutiful Trump sycophant in order to establish credibility, with some, so that when the time came he could claim something like this and in so doing assist with the greatest cover-up of all time in facilitation of the greatest theft of all time – that of the 2020 U.S. presidential election.

    1. Poe’s Law. Can’t tell whether Tilted is delusional or mocking the delusional.

      1. Didn’t you hear? The activist, black-robed tyrants overturned Poe’s Law.

  5. I think this doesn’t so much set the bar too high, as set the wrong bar.

    Normally, in local elections anyway, you don’t need to prove that fraud or illegality changed the outcome of the election in order to get the result overturned. All you have to do is prove that enough irregularities took place that the count can’t be considered reliable, that you don’t KNOW who won among the legally counted ballots.

    So, by THAT standard, if Trump can demonstrate that 200,000 votes were illegally counted contrary to state law, and the margin was 50,000, he would not normally be required to prove that the illegally counted ballots ran 125,000 Biden to 75,000 Trump. It would be enough that 200K > 50K.

    Well, not unless the ballots had been segregated properly. IF that had happened, the question would be what the vote count was among the legally counted votes.

    But they weren’t segregated in these cases, so there’s no way of reconstructing what the outcome of a legally conducted count would have been. And that normally leads to elections being decertified.

    What’s being asked for here is proof the deck was stacked, when what would normally be required is only that nobody was allowed to watch the deck being shuffled, and so it could have been stacked.

    Anyway, I think this legal fight is pretty much hopeless, the Court already signaled by refusing cert on the PA challenge before the election that they had no intention of doing anything about states violating election laws.

    1. “when what would normally be required is only that nobody was allowed to watch the deck being shuffled, and so it could have been stacked.”

      What are you talking about? Do you really think this is a convincing argument to anyone not already convinced?

      1. It works quite well when you go to court to get LOCAL elections overturned. I could point to at least two local elections overturned this year by courts, not on the basis of proof fraud had changed the outcome, but just that there were enough illegal votes that the outcome might have been changed.

        1. Again, you’re moving the goal posts. Can you point to elections overturned on the basis that ‘nobody was allowed to watch the deck being shuffled?’ And I don’t think this is even Trump’s argument, is it, it’s more like ‘wasn’t ‘sufficiently’ allowed to watch the shuffling.’

        2. If you’re referring to the same two examples you offered last time, they don’t present a situation remotely analogous to anything that could be plausibly alleged to have happened here.

          1. They were more than adequate to demonstrate that you’re not required to prove that fraud actually changed the outcome of an election in order to get it certified.

            Trump can easily prove massive violations of election laws in multiple states. The problem is that the courts don’t care if election laws were violated.

            That’s a freaking huge deal in a democracy.

            1. Trump can easily prove massive violations of election laws in multiple states. The problem is that the courts don’t care if election laws were violated.

              You are confusing the above, which is not true, with:

              Trump can easily prove to Brett Bellmore massive violations of election laws in multiple states. The problem is that the courts don’t care what Brett Bellmore thinks about election laws being violated, because the courts are either state courts who decide what state law says or federal courts who defer to state courts, rather than to Brett Bellmore, about what state law says. And that’s a good thing for democracy.

              And for further clarity, the “massive violations” that Trump can prove to your satisfaction amount to pre-election determinations of the rules. I can understand you might not be happy that, for example, PA courts determined what they did about extended receipt deadlines or what have you, but that was a pre-election day decision. It did not and does not change that all parties knew what the rules were going into the election and, so, voters and candidates knew how/when they could cast ballots and when they would be counted.

              You are a long, long way from fraud that could have changed the outcome of the election. You are like Lindsay Graham in Georgia urging the Secretary of State to throw out hundreds of thousands of ballots because you don’t like the result. The election was fair. Trump lost. Accept it and demand Trump accept it, or you will be part of the damaging of democracy.

              (And by all means help uncover actual fraud. I fully support prosecuting anyone found to have committed election fraud. But absent that, this is just a lot of whining that damages democracy. Stop it.)

        3. That is not the case here. Trump has not challenged enough ballots to conclude that the apparent margin of victory might have been exceeded by the number of suspect ballots.

      2. It’s like chain of custody of evidence — and drug cases are routinely dismissed when that gets screwed up. If you can’t document that there was a Republican watching, your chain of custody is gone and those ballots ought to get tossed….

        1. But Republicans were watching. The complaint is merely that they were not close enough.

          1. Care to try that with a _Miranda_ representation issue?

    2. The doomer in me agrees. It’s a matter of time. The Amistad Project press conference today, where the trucker says he personally hauled to full boxes of filled out mail in ballots from NY to PA was interesting to say the least.

      I suspect that eventually, it’s all going to come out, the full scale of the fraud that is. It may lead to an impeachment, but what it WILL lead to, is Biden forever having the taint of being illegitimate.

      1. I can’t wait until Trump runs again in 2024 which, at his age, you’ll have to admit he’s legally retarded or something, right?

        1. Well, you’re mentally retarded, but hey, what am I going to do about it?

          Trump, as a politician, will be done if Biden raises his right hand and lies on Jan 20th.

          1. I’m just saying since you argued Biden is so likely to be demented due to his age you’re surely, surely, going to appear here in four years if Trump runs at an even more advanced age to say the same.

            Surely…

            1. Biden, like all of us will if we life to 80, has age related decline. For him it’s getting bad. That was obvious to all of us, notably his campaign staff, who kept him in the basement, confident of his win by other mean. I did not say he had dementia.

              1. Ok, so you will now declare that if Trump runs in 2024 he’s essentially retarded, right? Let’s bookmark it dude. You’re totally not a cultist hack, just a guy making a totally reasonable medical argument, so let’s put it down.

                1. Some people develop dementia in their 60’s, some die over 100 without it. Let’s see how Trump is doing in 2024.

                  I will go on the record as saying he shouldn’t plan on running in 2024, regardless of whether he’s still mentally competent. Biden shouldn’t have run this year.

                  Guys, it’s long since time you retired when you’re on the verge of 80. Go take up gardening, or something like that, where you don’t need energy and wits.

              2. Biden has had two brain bleeds — that we know about.
                It’s not his age that we need to worry about.

        2. p.s. The Dems had to wait until they won the House to impeach, but when Muller came back with nada, they impeached on nothing but a friendly phone call.

          Biden’s presidency will be paralyzed by investigations from the get go, like Trump’s, from the miasma of fraud that surrounds him.

          1. Yeah, just a friendly phone call asking a foreign leader desperate for aid to investigate the caller’s chief domestic political rival. Might as well indict Sally for calling Susie about the prom, amirite?

            1. Oh, like when you pressure a foreign leader to fire a prosecutor investigating the company where your crack addict son is on the board due to his last name, amirite?

              There was nothing there, that’s why the impeachment failed. It was a Hail Mary pass to pacify the rabid Dem base.

              1. You mean the prosecutor that the international community said was gumming up the prosecution of said company?

                Look dude, OAN is not a reliable news source…

                Impeachment failed because one party has gone off the rails in terms of principle and facts. OAN will do that to you.

              2. Every single person who was willing to go under oath and testify said that Trump did what was alleged. Every single person who claimed Trump was innocent refused to take an oath to it.

                That’s not hyperbole, that is the actual accounting. Those are the facts.

                1. Nobody questions that he made the call, they question that it was wrongful.

                  1. You really are just a dishonest partisan.

                    Pure historical revisionism! You usually have to wait a decade at least for that, but you cultists are accelerationists too, so I’m not surprised.

                    The question was whether or not the announcement of an investigation was made necessary (by Trump) for Ukraine to receive the aid that congress had approved.

                    All those who went under oath said that that was the deal. All those who denied it refused to go under oath.

              3. Stop pushing that idiocy.

                It makes you sound like a jackass.

                1. I suppose you have some alternative facts that you would like to substitute in to this chapter?

                2. wrong placement of comment

      2. Why is it so hard to believe that a guy who was never that popular in the fist place, spent a lot of time trashing people and places in states he needed to win, and had an incoherent response to a major crisis that affected millions of people lost an election to an anodyne career politician who promised a return to normalcy?

        1. Why is it so hard for you to believe, that when you lock Republicans out of the counting rooms than cover the windows, that we won’t accept the election results as fair? I remember 2000, where they all sat next to each other and poured over the ballots. This alone, despite everything else, should give you the chills. Face it, you like the result, so you are whistling past the graveyard of our Republic.

          If Biden wants us to go *sigh* and accept the loss, like we did in 2008 and 2012, he needs utter transparency. But he can’t give it.

          1. Cultists gonna cult.

            1. Yep, you certainly are cult-like in your lack of rationality.

              Have a good day!

              1. Again, as the original comment pointed out, we have a President who barely won, remained unpopular, who said multiple factors would make it hard for him to win, and then lost.

                And you’re like ‘well the other guy has to especially prove he won or who could believe it!’

                Cultists gonna cult.

                1. AND we have Democrats throwing Republican election observers out of the room so that they can count without being watched.

                  And ballot harvesting.

                  And multiple states with massive, deliberate election law violations.

                  I warned up front, this was not how you run an election when political distrust is the highest it’s been since the start of the Civil war. But it’s how you guys insisted on doing it.

                  Now reap the results.

                  1. You were going to be a delusional, partisan hack whether Trump won or not.

                  2. I notice you forgot to cite all of those astounding claims.

                  3. Republican observers were in the room, cavilling about how close they could stand.

          2. Biden’s win is similar to 2012*. The real difference: the GOP has a baby man who won’t accept it and lemmings like you who will rush over the hill at his command.

            *Trump’s was smaller of course. I guess you are on record railing for transparency re his thin win? I look forward to you providing links about that, you good government fair elections guy you…

            1. Biden’s win isn’t similar to 2012, but keep telling yourself that.

              If he wants Republicans to accept him, he needs radical transparency. But he won’t, because he can’t.

              1. I’m looking forward to your links to you arguing for radical transparency for Trump’s much slimmer win. Surely you’re gonna provide it, you’re not a hack or cultists but a dedicated fair elections kind of guy, right?

          3. It actually doesn’t because because that has been debunked. Republicans were in the room, and the only reason they covered the windows is because idiots were yelling and screaming at the people just doing their jobs.

            What does give me chills, as a lawyer, is attorneys going to courts with incompetently put together cases asking them for insane remedies like disenfranchising millions of voters. It makes our profession look like a joke.

            What does give me chills is an elections official saying she would certify mostly White Livonia which had more discrepancies than mostly Black Detroit which she would not certify.

            What does give me chills is lawyers in these cases spinning wilder and wilder conspiracy theories about Hugo Chavez and Serbians and illegal military action in Germany.

            What does give me chills is lawyers and politicians engaged in increasingly unhinged violent rhetoric.

            These people are trying to accomplish the largest disenfranchisement since the Jim Crow era and they are trying to do it after the election. I mean some of these people, like the case in Pennsylvania are saying their own election is illegitimate. What kind of Republic is that?

            1. Well, Kemp should just use his ’emergency powers’ to order the SoS to declare Trump won GA, and likewise in other states. mad kalak would be all ‘brilliant!’

            2. And what gives me chills is the number of people like m_k who are so slavishly devoted to Trump that they can’t accept simple facts.

              It’s amazing and somewhat frightening.

            3. If it is of any comfort, most of us know that not all lawyers are that batshit crazy.

              I’m rather disappointed that lawyers can’t be outright disbarred for this kind of behavior.

              1. I’d rather disbar lawyers who go to the Supreme Court to argue that the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, really was intended to protect the right of a homosexual man to erupt in another man’s tuchis.

                1. Someday you’re going to choke on your own hatred and die.

                  1. That, or Professor Volokh names him a Volokh Conspirator.

                  2. Jason, he has a point.

                    What the 14th Amendment says is one thing, but as to the intent of it’s 19th Century authors, he is right…

                    1. No one argues pure internationalism as a valid jurisprudence. Everyone starts with the text.

                  3. No, he’s far more likely to choke on a big d*ck.

                2. Dude, you think about gay sex more then I do, and I bone my husband on the regular.

          4. Why is it so hard for you to believe, that when you lock Republicans out of the counting rooms

            Because you are lying. This never happened. The Trump lawyer had to admit when asked by a judge point blank, after trying to dodge the question, that it never happened.

            (Was there a situation where the windows were covered? Yes. But there were hundreds of Republican observers in the room at the time. The windows were covered because uncredentialed Republican apparatchiks who were outside the room were trying to film the process, which is not permitted.)

      3. And what will you say if that turns out to be total BS?

      4. I’m more worried about Harris, and God help us if we get Pelosi — it will be like Nixon in 1974 where they had to get rid of Agnew first and get a new VeeP (Gerald Ford) who then became POTUS.

        What scares me is that the republic can (has) survived civil disorder, even violent civil disorder, and likely could survive it again.

        But what it can’t – and won’t — survive is apathy. It’s hard enough to get people to vote now, and if elections are popularly viewed as fraudulent hoaxes, no one’s going to show up….

        1. The only people viewing the election as a hoax are the Trumpists, and there is nothing that will convince them otherwise.

          Put the blame where it belongs – on Trump and most of the Republican Party, as well as the gullible fools who believe what that liar says.

          1. And in contrast to Ed’s concerns, I’d say America would be better off if Trumpists never voted again.

            Rational republicans need to exist to ensure balance to our system. Cultists need to disappear forever.

            1. A man named Hitler said something similar in 1933, how’d that turn out?

              1. You’ve talked about gassing people, so, uh, LOL.

      5. Well, some are talking martial law now….

        1. Says a lot about those calling for it.

          Defending Flynn looks a bit more dicey now.

    3. There’s a huge difference between “accepted ballots that didn’t comply with state law” — and “fraud.

      There is a huge difference between accepting ballots with missing middle initial on the ballot application and other minor irregularities, on the one hand, and “fraud” on the other.

      So far the Trump Campaign’s press conferences have repeatwdly alleged massive fraud. But when they get into court, their complaints turn out to be almost entirely about minor technical irregularities that involve an (alleged) technical noncompliance with state election law.

      Federal courts up and down the country are tossing the technical irregularity claims out, finding that policies of leniency in minor irregularities are also part of state election law and have to be accepted by federal courts, and the federal constitution simply does not require tossing out every ballot that has a minor technical noncomformity.

      1. Actually there’s not a huge difference…if you’re following the law.

        There’s a case for the Wetumpka City Council, where the Judge overturned the election. Eight absentee ballots that had been cast for one Candidate were thrown out either because the signatures had been forged or they had not been notarized or signed in front of the requisite number of witnesses,

      2. “There’s a huge difference between “accepted ballots that didn’t comply with state law” — and “fraud.”

        You know what isn’t part of that ‘huge difference’?

        Illegality.

        1. You know what’s also illegal? Bringing claims in an untimely fashion against parties who didn’t harm you and a court granting a remedy that harms millions of third parties who can’t contest it.

  6. Well, obviously he didn’t consult with Rudy, Jenna, and Sidney or he would have found proof of the hundreds of thousands of fraudulent votes that they claim were cast.

  7. Funny how Barr was Persona Non Grata up until he said the things people wanted to hear; suddenly he’s all truth and sensibility.

    Like people who quote the New York Times to buttress their arguments, when the rest of the time they can’t slag them enough.

    1. If Trump had clearly won, I imagine Barr would be playing the role of loyal Trump supporter, and Durham might even have recommended prosecutions, too. Lots of people within the administration who were only out for their own interests would still think those interests bound to Trump’s.

      But now Barr is a bit more concerned with how the GOP establishment regard him, than he is with how a lame duck President does.

      1. I don’t think Barr has that motivation. Barr could retire any time and never think about any of this stuff again. I think Barr wants to be a public servant at a time when the public most needs someone upstanding to serve as AG.

        1. Barr wants to be a public servant at a time when the public most needs someone upstanding to serve as AG.

          I don’t think he really needs to worry about the possibility that Trump might appoint someone upstanding. He hasn’t done that all through his presidency. So if that’s what Barr is worried about, he might as well retire.

          1. Super dumb comment. Congrats.

            1. Trump keeps ratcheting down the level of competence of his appointments and ratcheting up the necessary sycophancy. That is why Barr is in trouble. He was definitely willing to be a dishonest sycophant, but he had limits. With Trump, there can be no limits to how much you will debase yourself in the pursuit of Trump’s agenda. And even then, eventually, you will be stabbed in the back.

        2. What he wanted, evidently, was to be in a position to make sure Trump wouldn’t do anything a mainstream, establishment Republican wouldn’t do.

          Even if it was something technically within his power as President.

          1. Presuming Barr thinks those are the right values, that’s not really different than what I said.

            I think Barr intends to do the job according to his personal standards for how it should be done. Not someone else’s — at least not primarily.

            1. I’m sure that’s how he rationalizes it, yes.

          2. What is the basis for your “evidently?”

            Barr did a pretty good job of being a toady.

            I think Ben_ is right, at least insofar as Barr definitely wanted to be AG, but his idea of “public service” seems to be vastly increasing incarceration rates and unreservedly doing Trump’s bidding.

            Of course, you, Brett, are also right that he is now looking to his post-Trump reputation. Rat. Ship.

            1. To the dedicated lemming the toady seems like a quitter.

            2. He did a fair job of simulating being a toady, while making sure that multiple things that Trump said were priorities didn’t get done.

              1. Because, as we all know, lawyers routinely tank their clients. After all, what else could possibly explain it?

              2. Brett Bellmore : He did a fair job of simulating being a toady, while making sure that multiple things that Trump said were priorities didn’t get done.

                Geez. I’ve lost track of how many people, organizations, entities and groups Brett claimed “betrayed” Trump. Obviously, the purity of Brett’s cult-love outshines all competition. That must be his sole consolation.

                Here’s the irony : Brett has this growing list of those who gave Trump the Dolchstoßlegende, but his hero is a man who regularly betrayed everyone within reach, without the slightest regard for principle, honor, or feelings.

                There was a story a while back about Trump trying to pressure his 85- year old father into signing papers that gave DJT full control of the estate. At the time Fred was sickly, bed-ridden and showing early signs of dementia. Trump sent an accountant and lawyer to Fred’s bedside, where they insisted the old man had to sign right that very second. I’m reading this and thinking : Jesus, his own father; his own mother; his own siblings……

                https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/politics/donald-trump-father-will/

            3. Bernard, at this point Barr has become an interesting rhetorical innovation—a rat sinking a leaving ship.

              1. That was pretty clever.

              2. Alas, we can’t upvote…..

        3. I wonder how many skeletons Barr has in his closets.

          An interesting aspect of the Barry Seal (movie: “American Made”) matter is that Barr is mentioned as having been a US Attorney involved in that mess. Hmmm….

          1. Barr was never a US Attorney. Dr. Ed strikes again.

            1. Define “US Attorney” generically — attorney employed by DOJ, which Barr was.

              1. I presided over my family’s Thanksgiving table this year. Which was in the United States. Therefore I am “generically” President of the United States.

                1. No, you’re a presider.

      2. Durham disappeared long ago. Wonder why?

        Couldn’t possibly be because he didn’t really come up with anything, could it?

        No. Not on the Trump planet.

        1. He’s apparently back as a special counsel.

          1. A special counsel for what? What’s the story on his big investigation?

            1. I remember when the IG was going to drop bombs. When he didn’t he just became a Deep State operative. Conspiracy thinking is of course non-falsifiable.

              1. Right.

                If the investigation doesn’t turn up what you just know is the truth then it just proves the investigator is part of the conspiracy.

                1. Indeed. Look, the Trump cultists are essentially lining up Kemp and now Barr for that now. It’s literally pathetic.

                  1. Even more concerning is that, at least around here, they’re all too stupid to even realize how insane their behavior is.

            2. They’re going after the pensions of one or more FBI agents who did their jobs.

        2. “Durham disappeared long ago. Wonder why?”

          Disappeared? Isn’t he conducting an investigation, and recently leaked the fact that he was being pressured to produce results before the election? Presumably as some point he’ll wrap up his investigation and announce some result. IIUC he’s already got one conviction.

          1. Yes, he did recently complain about people pressuring him to not slow-walk it past the election. But he ignored them and dug in his heels anyway, and once it came out the way he liked, stopped pretending he meant to produce anything.

            1. Another lawyer tanking his client? I remember “Bull” Durham from the mid-80’s when he had the nerve to put my guilty client in prison. He was a straight shooter in those days, if a tad zealous, as career prosecutors often are, and I’d be surprised if he has changed much since then.

              1. Lawyers do sometimes tank their clients. It’s not like the practice of law is the one totally honest profession in a world of sinners.

                1. Yes, and bridges sometimes fall down, too. Your point is?

        3. Which is PROOF Durham is on to something!

      3. But now Barr is a bit more concerned with how the GOP establishment regard him, than he is with how a lame duck President does.

        There is no GOP establishment. There hasn’t been a GOP establishment since the Indiana primary in 2016. There is only Trumpworld. Please stop with your fantasies.

        Barr is an extreme hack who cares primarily about unchecked executive power. He’ll push the envelope as far as he possibly can. But he’s not going to claim, in a situation where everything is public and there’s zero evidence, that there’s actually evidence.

  8. “AG Barr . . . is not wiling to make up facts or discredit the electoral process.” That distinguishes him from Eric “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” Holder or Neera Tanden. But the Conspirators are much too afraid of being called racist to criticize Holder, and too deep into TDS to criticize Tanden.

    1. Yes, if only anyone on this site had had the courage to criticize Eric Holder.

      1. One of the Conspirators criticized Holder with respect to his Ferguson investigation? I missed that.

  9. And suddenly the conclusions of AG Barr are beyond question.

    The Justice Department’s investigation of Bubba Wallace’s garage-door pull was more thorough. I don’t fault Barr. It’s not like he’s personally Columbo-ing the scene(s) of the crime. His deputies produced no evidence, though I doubt they bothered to look for it very hard, if at all. What other conclusion could he draw?

    One wonders why the Russian hackers who decided the last election failed to decide this one. With their Russian agent successfully installed as the head of the federal government, who would prevent them? Did Russia tire of controlling the United States government? /sarc

    1. And suddenly the conclusions of AG Barr are beyond question.

      Generally speaking, when a yes-man says “yes”, it’s not unfair to question if he actually means it, or if he’s just saying it because he’s a yes-man.

      But if a yes-man says “no”? Then you can bet he has some damn good reasons for saying “no”.

      You don’t have to respect the yes-man to realize him saying “no” was kind of a big deal (for him, at least).

      So yeah. Barr breaking with Trump, on an issue of such importance to Trump, so publicly? It’s not unfair to treat this conclusion more seriously then his prior “yes-man” conclusions.

  10. William Barr, welcome to the Resistance.

  11. Move along, please. Nothing to see here.

  12. The Trump claims are pathetic, and his supporters holding out on them is more so.

    Trump won by a much more slim margin than Biden reportedly did. He called his win a ‘landslide’ and didn’t question the procedures in place, many of which he now does!

    Trump foolishly cried wolf before any votes were cast. Indeed, he said the *only* way he would lose was if the election were rigged. This of course makes later complaints of this nature seem like prepared excuses for losing (and Trump famously and well documented hates to ‘lose’).

    Trump also has demonstrated a willingness to just fling anything against the wall hoping something will stick. He said counting ballots after election night was somehow illegitimate (wtf?). He said it was conspiratorial for the networks to ‘call’ elections (in 2016 he touted the same). He said mail in voting was illegitimate, except of course in Florida where it worked out for him! He said GOP observers weren’t allowed to be present, and then when that was palpably false said they weren’t allowed at the right space (actually *he* has often just kept repeating the former, his attorneys at least switched up).

    It’s pathetic. On the one hand he has said repeatedly that the media was against him (well, except for the biggest ones which essentially broadcast his rallies in full down the stretch), that mail in voting disadvantaged him, that the Covid mess disadavantaged him, that he was being outspent, and the, when this same guy who barely won last time got beat he asserted well, it *must* have been rigged, I mean how else could this happen?

    No one who isn’t guzzling the Kool-aid should take such a person and his claims seriously.

    1. To be fair, Trump did claim the 2016 election was fraudulent (even though he won).

      1. I remember him saying he wouldn’t accept it if he lost, but would if he won.

        This is who’s leading them up the hill to die on…

        1. In some ways that was less of a political statement and more of a psychological one. He literally cannot accept that he is a loser who is widely disliked. He believes it is just a relatively small group of vocal haters. So the only explanation for his loss is that the vocal haters pulled some shady stuff.

          1. Yes. But it’s one thing for Trump to not grasp that lots of people don’t like him and his caustic style, but what’s amazing is so many people on this blog thinking that his loss is somehow amazing and in need of a James Bond film level conspiracy to explain it…

            1. His losing isn’t particularly amazing. Biden winning while the Democrats did badly down the ticket was kind of amazing.

              I’m willing to accept that it’s due to the Democrats successfully demonizing him, to the point where millions of people voted for Biden just to deny Trump a second term, and left the rest of the ballot blank because they didn’t otherwise like Democrats.

              But that doesn’t change the fact that this is NOT how you run elections in a country where there’s this much division. Not if you want people to accept they lost.

              Doesn’t matter if it was an honest shuffle, if you do it out of sight the guy who loses will think it was stacked, and should.

              1. So Trump deserves no criticism for stating many times, prior to the election, that the only way he would lose if it was rigged? Those statements by the most powerful man in the world are not harmful or divisive? But the Dems trying to get elected, now that is really divisive! I don’t understand your logic at all.

  13. While AG Barr may be willing to take the President’s direction about what matters and which people to investigate, he is not wiling to make up facts or discredit the electoral process.

    He is certainly willing to make up facts. Or was.

  14. I like how VC and the Dems are acting like people disputing elections to the utmost of their ability is something Trump invented in 2020.

    1. What’s your analogous situation to what’s happening now?

        1. And you were screaming for scrutiny of Trump’s win then? Provide links because I’m sure you’re a fair elections enthusiast and not a Trump cultist, right?

        2. Remember when Hillary refused to concede in 2016? Remember when Hillary tried to get millions of votes discarded in 2016? Remember when the Obama GSA refused to start the transition process in 2016? Remember when Obama refused to extend the the traditional winner’s White House invitation to Trump in 2016?

        3. In 2016 the election was conceded once the networks called it, Trump was having tea in the White House within a week, the transition started promptly, and the few cases that were floating around weren’t about overturning the election (nor were they purported to be).

          In 2020 the candidate still hasn’t conceded, attacked everyone and everything that has acknowledged he lost, held up the transition for weeks, is pushing nonsense lawsuits across the union in a desperate attempt to overturn the election, led a “stop the count” campaign, claimed counting votes after election day is illegal, damn-near had riots outside of counting places, death threats against officials who are just doing their jobs has been routine…

          If both of those are “the utmost of their ability”, then what the fuck happened between 2016 and 2020 to make people so much more able?

      1. Were you alive in the year 2000?

        1. Sure was. The whole election hinged on one county and a couple hundred votes. It was genuinely up in the air.

          In 2020 we have a 70 odd electoral vote margin and over 6 million on the popular vote. Trump has 0 chance of winning, but he has done a good job of poisoning the minds of some of our more…impressionable minds in the citizenry.

        2. I don’t remember either candidate alleging a giant inter-continental conspiracy to change votes, with death threats to elected officials in multiple states for the crime of certifying the vote or saying “yeah, this election was secure”, or damn-near riots outside of polling places shouting “stop the count” because the idiots have been misled by their candidate that it’s illegal to count votes after election day.

          I remember it being about how and if to conduct a recount in one county.

          If both of those are the “utmost of their ability”, then something changed between 2000 and 2020 to make people much more able.

    2. Nice slight of hand from ‘People’ to the ‘President of the United States.’

  15. Years from now, people looking back will probably think this is one of the easier elections to explain.

    1. There was an incumbent who wasn’t particularly popular to begin with who won a narrow Electoral College victory.
    2. Although he succeeded in improving his brand in some states (Ohio Florida) he didn’t really succeed in building a broader coalition in all the states that he had won before.
    3. He also spent a lot of time trashing cities and popular people in the places he needed to win.
    4. A seemly significant portion of out of power Republicans spent a lot of time and money trying to defeat him. Indeed, his own party’s two prior nominees (McCain and Romney) were known to strongly oppose him.
    5. World events intervened, as they often do (Depression for Hoover, Stagflation/Oil Crisis/Iran Hostage Crisis for Carter), and his response, was all over the place. And of course, by the time of the election millions and millions of voters knew people who either died, got a bad case, got sick and still had some symptoms long after, or got it themselves and that may have influenced their decision in voting and not voting.
    6. His opponent was the VP in an administration that was relatively popular when it left. He promised the kind of anodyne platitudes that voters often like with enough of a hint of progressive change to get left-wing voters more motivated.

    TL:DR: unpopular person didn’t get more popular where he needed to and seemed to have a chaotic response to a worldwide crisis. Pretty easy to see why he didn’t win.

    1. OR, somehow Despite improving with every racial and gender group EXCEPT White Men, Trump managed to lose?

      1. I don’t know what the relevance of that is, but Biden did better with women overall than Clinton did, so it’s not even true.

        Also, you might google “Simpson’s Paradox.”

      2. Yes. Coalitions shift all the time. We saw that in 2018 and 2016. Here’s how it went down in 2020:

        https://www.brookings.edu/research/2020-exit-polls-show-a-scrambling-of-democrats-and-republicans-traditional-bases/

        Also the urban/rural divide was pretty stark this time around, and it might interest you to know: way more people live in cities and large metropolitan suburbs than live elsewhere.

  16. “I’d rather have a sister in a whorehouse than a brother in the FBI.” That quote from Alabama Securities Commissioner Thomas Krebs appeared on the front page of The Wall Street Journal in 1980, referencing the feds’ unwillingness to go after financial criminals. But it’s a sentiment that could be shared by a lot of people given the FBI’s recent record (2016).

    1. This comment speaks volumes about the cult of Trump, whose believers have to contort themselves into arguing that *the FBI* is a leftist tool because their crazy leader runs afoul of their norms.

      1. The FBI has been a useful political tool for many administrations. I don’t think it is far flung it could be used as one currently.

        1. The FBI broke protocol to torpedo Hillary while keeping what they knew about Trump’s many foreign agents mum. If anything, it’s the Democrats who should be complaining about the FBI, but currently conservatives are the straw graspers.

          1. There were no Trump foreign agents. That was just pure fiction which apparently people still believe.

            1. Dude, Manafort was an obvious foreign agent. I remember Applebaum (no leftist sop) saying so immediately when Trump named him. Come out of your OAN cave, there’s lots to see up here!

            2. You should read the reports.

              https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf

              Read the sections on Manafort and Kilimnik.

              Also, what would you call the Trump tower meeting? The agenda was explicitly “Russian Government Assistance for Trump Campaign” (paraphrasing).

            3. That was just pure fiction which apparently people still believe.

              Including the Republicans on the senate committee that looked into it.

          2. The FBI broke protocol to cover for Hillary by openly giving a press conference “refusing” to press charges, when it wasn’t Comey’s decision, and doing so on the non-nonsensical basis that she couldn’t have been negligent because she had no intent to leak to outsiders the classified information she illegally handled on her illegal server.
            Then there’s also the way that all of her staff was granted immunity before their interviews, or that a draw exoneration letter was written before the interviews, or how the destruction of evidence was quietly ignored, and so on.

            Then when Comey did finally mention the laptop, it was only because the FBI had been sitting on it for weeks and someone leaked it to the right-wing press.

            1. The polling indicates the exact opposite than the FBI giving Hillary cover.

    2. M_k is simply plagiarizing Glenn Reynolds.

  17. So what is it. Does election fraud not happen? Or are we now at election fraud that would have changed the election did not happen?

    There is a difference between the two questions and it seems like the media wants to start carrying the second question instead of the first. Now that is an ominous change. So was there election fraud? Just not enough to move actual electoral votes?

    These qualifications are also why people don’t trust or believe the media. We were told before and right after the election no fraud happened. Now it is “no fraud that would have effected the outcome…” Why the moving goal posts?

    1. Jimmy’s just asking questions, why won’t people entertain them?

    2. These qualifications are also why people don’t trust or believe the media. We were told before and right after the election no fraud happened. Now it is “no fraud that would have effected the outcome…” Why the moving goal posts?

      Get a brain. Barr is not “the media.” The media reported what people like Krebs and Raffensperger said, and is now reporting what Barr said.

      Do you not get that?

      1. Also, ‘the media’ repeatedly said things like ‘there is very little fraud via mail vote.’ They even replicated a numerical thing over and over (.0009% or whatever). It’s cultists like Jimmy that think in absolutes and so read everything anyone else says that way.

      2. I get that Barr said it DID NOT EFFECT THE OUTCOME OF THE ELECTION. So my question is completely legit – was there election fraud then?

        1. Election fraud or individual voter fraud? Be careful with your terms.

        2. Yes, there have been some documented instances of people fraudulently voting for Trump.

          Outside of your Strawman Village, no one is arguing that fraud never happens in elections, just that there’s not enough of it to shift elections and that in the rare instances in which it does, it’s usually noticeable (as in NC-9).

          1. Your fantasy world must be interesting. All the illegal votes were for Trump. OK…..

            So was there election fraud?
            Or was it just not enough fraud to change the election?
            Or was it fraud but the media just doesn’t want to report on it?

            Whatever the media decides to report on they should find a consistent line.

            1. There was fraud–like I said, there’s documented cases of it (all that I’ve seen have been for Trump, but I’m sure there’s some illegal votes for Biden here or there too).

              No, it was not enough fraud to change the election. Not even close. As Barr just said and as a bunch of judges have noticed as well.

              I’m sure the media would be happy to report on large-scale fraud (the NC-7 case got plenty of coverage), but random one-off instances of fraud like there’s evidence for are basically just human interest stories.

            2. What’s your point, JTD?

              That there was fraud because there were maybe 10 or 20, or even 100 fraudulent votes cast, and so the election should be invalidated and Trump retained in office?

              If that moronic argument is not what you’re trying to say, then tell us what it is.

              1. So you are fine with small amounts of fraud. OK….

                1. Would you be okay with disenfranchising tens of millions of people because of 100 fraudulent votes?

                2. Jimmy trying to make perfect the enemy of the good, with his usual bad faith.

                  What you demand is literally impossible in a country of millions. Not that you much care about logic. Or good faith.

    3. Because a complaint seeking to void an election result must plead supporting facts commensurate with that drastic remedy?

    4. There is a difference between the two questions

      No. There were on the order of 157 million votes cast in this election. No rational person thinks that at least one of those votes was not cast illegally. No rational person thinks that this is what anyone means when they say “No evidence of fraud.”

      So are you irrational? Or just dishonest?

  18. I don’t know about anyone else, but I am personally glad there was nothing found to date that was massive vote fraud. I don’t have to like the electoral result to be grateful that there really hasn’t been massive voter fraud found. Can you imagine if massive voter fraud were actually found?

    Personally, if there were something there and he was aware of it, AG Barr would pursue it.

    1. That is the elephant in the room that the left is ignoring and why we need to take it seriously. IF there is massive fraud then the magnitude of correct actions that need to happen to address it would be astronomical. And simply ignoring it is going to guarantee that bad things happen.

      1. What fucking elephant? There was no massive fraud, no matter how much you yammer about it.

        1. “WASHINGTON — Neera Tanden, President-elect Joe Biden’s new appointee as director of the Office of Management and Budget, spread baseless conspiracy theories after the 2016 election insisting that Hillary Clinton lost to President Trump because Russian hackers flipped votes.”

          https://nypost.com/2020/11/30/biden-omb-appointee-neera-tanden-spread-conspiracy-theory-about-2016/

          In a series of tweets, some still online Monday, Tanden claimed the “Russians did enough damage to affect more than 70k votes in 3 states,” referring to Clinton’s losing margin in the Rust Belt states of Michigan and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
          ________________

          So, if we are to the point that high profile government nominees of both parties are in the habit of claiming systemic fraud, perhaps we should expend some effort in proving them wrong.

          1. There’s a whole DoJ report on that tho.

            1. That is because when there are allegation of such fraud they ought to be investigated. Not just told “you crazy….”

              1. Dude, if Trump and his lawyers were just sayign that allegations of fraud should be investigated, no one would care.

                But that’s not what happened. Trump claimed it was illegal to count votes after November 3rd, Trump claimed that mail-in votes were illegal (except in Florida), Trump’s campaign spurred protestors outside of polling places to “stop the count” (their words, not mine), Trump’s lawyers have, in court, said that the proper remedy to a few hundred improperly cast ballots is to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters, and that’s when they actually present reasonable arguments at all in court.

                Trump and his campaign have gone well past “we should investigate” to “we’re alleging fraud that would be insufficient to change the outcome of the election, but you should invalidate the election and award it to Trump anyway”.

                So yeah. People aren’t saying Trump and his cultists are crazy because they want an investigation. It’s because all the other bat-shit crazy shit y’all have been doing for months.

          2. In a series of tweets, some still online Monday, Tanden claimed the “Russians did enough damage to affect more than 70k votes in 3 states,” referring to Clinton’s losing margin in the Rust Belt states of Michigan and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

            People who can read know that the quoted language is not saying that there was voter fraud or hacked votes.

    2. Democrats agree that the only way to address this is to ensure that massive voter fraud cannot be detected. Mail out ballots to everyone, order signature mismatches to be ignored, destroy security envelopes, do a better job of opening military absentee ballots and attempting to destroy those for the Republican, etc.

    3. There certainly were massive election law violations, though. It’s just that the courts don’t care.

      1. They don’t care because they’re following the law.

        1. Yes, certainly. The easiest example is changing the deadline for accepting absentee ballots in Pennsylvania. The law said election day, the PA supreme court decided to give people several extra days anyway.

          An election law violation is still a violation if a judge orders it.

          1. Not a federal question.

          2. An election law violation is still a violation if a judge orders it.

            No. It. Isn’t.

            1. Yes, it is. The PA supreme court acknowledged that the deadline was constitutional, that the legislature was entitled to enact it, and that it wasn’t at all ambiguous.

              That completely exhausted their legitimate excuses for overturning it.

              That the early voting statute had an anti-severance clause stating that if ANY part of it were overturned, the whole law was void, and the PA court didn’t follow it, was just the icing on the cake.

              1. Judicial review you don’t like isn’t illegal. It’s the opposite of that, actually.

                That completely exhausted their legitimate excuses
                You’re really bad at this.

              2. Yes, it is. The PA supreme court acknowledged that the deadline was constitutional, that the legislature was entitled to enact it, and that it wasn’t at all ambiguous.

                Brett. You’re out of your depth. You don’t know how to read the constitution, statutes, or caselaw. More over, Dunning-Krugerly, you don’t know that you don’t know these things.

                The PA Supreme Court acknowledged that it was facially constitutional. (More precisely, it acknowledged that no facial challenge was being brought, so it didn’t actually have the opportunity to rule on that.) It granted remedy for an as applied challenge.

              3. Brett, let’s leave aside for a moment the concept that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is the final arbiter on what Pennsylvania law is. Let’s also leave aside the difference between facial and as-applied unconstitutionality.

                We know how many ballots arrived after Election Day and it was not enough to determine the outcome: fewer than 10,000. There was a lot of storm and fury about the late ballots, mail delays, etc., but ultimately in the grand scheme of the election these were non-issues.

                I will tell you that Democrats in Pennsylvania were concerned that the late-arriving ballots would not be counted and therefore encouraged voters to mail their ballots well in advance, return them in-person, or vote on election day rather than rely on the grace period.

      2. While I’m guessing you’ve covered this, where besides PA have the courts shown they just don’t care?

        1. Also Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin and North Carolina, for starters.

          Most of the rulings involved permitting ballot harvesting and/or changing deadlines prohibiting accepting ballots after the election was over. But there were also other statutory requirements ordered violated, mostly revolving around criteria for being eligible for an absentee ballot, or the requirements for a ballot to be legally counted.

          1. But were these cases “merely” courts not following the law, or cases that we could reasonably imagine having a large enough impact to matter. In other words, were they like the PA Supreme Court extending the deadline for receiving (would seem overstepping their authority, but surely not influential enough to overcome 80k votes), or like PA Supreme Court apparently redefining “observer” so that it doesn’t require being able to see what matters (no clue about the legality, but surely BS from a non-legal perspective, and possibly could have been influential enough).
            I haven’t been following all of this very closely — partially because my guy seems certain to be voted in by the EC — but outside of PA, I think I’ve only heard of stuff in Mich that could have impacted large enough numbers.

          2. Can you give some specific examples of where you think, for example, Georgia’s election law was violated? At some point a judge did rule that mail-in ballots should be counted if received after election day, but that was overturned before the election and none of those ballots were counted. This article asserts that the only court-ordered change to any Georgia election law was to change signature requirements for third party candidates. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

            https://www.gpb.org/news/2020/10/31/battleground-ballot-box-how-the-courts-shape-our-elections

            Same in Wisconsin–what are you talking about? The (bipartisan) elections commission (unanimously) decided to send out absentee ballot applications to everyone, which doesn’t seem inconsistent with any law. Other than that, I’m not aware of any actual changes in voting or vote-counting procedures in Wisconsin that were actually in effect.

            I’m not as familiar with the other states you mention, but see no particular reason to think that you’re more likely to be correct in those cases than Wisconsin or Georgia.

  19. The best outcome would be to identify a few people who perpetrated small scale fraud, send them to prison for 20 years to deter such things, and reassure the rest of us that the election results were valid.

    1. These frequently happens but often does not make the papers. Also they are often people who were confused. You often see people, often old people, who sent in a ballot and a neighbor told them they weren’t counting those so they thought they had to go vote in person. There is a lady in Texas who voted and was a convicted felon.
      She thought she could vote after here sentence was over. Sadly we will find some people voted twice because President Trump suggested they do that, we have the video.

  20. Let’s be real here. Was there massive fraud? No. But there were enough shenanigan’s that the left should have been embarrassed. But nothing embarrasses these perverts.

    I didn’t always believe this, but now I realize that nothing but guerilla warfare is going to stop the left.

    1. Great…now we have commenters advocating terrorism.

      So much for 2A being a defensive measure.

      SMH

      1. Eh the whole “we need a revolution” thing is a standard anti-fa line that no one seems to care about.

      2. I didn’t advocate anything, and you know it.

    2. Flying your trump 2020 flag from your off road rascal as you don walmart plate carriers and walmart ar-15’s is not going to get you the results you want.

  21. I’m glad the media now likes Barr…

    1. Yeah, lots of praise going on.

      Or maybe it’s fun watching the right turn on a dime against him, even as he makes admissions against his interests.

      1. It is fun to see the media will do anything to push their agenda and narrative.

        1. 1) There is no praise
          2) There is a lot of hilarious ‘Barr is being blackmailed’ coming from the conspiracists
          3) Admissions against interest are not at all dispositive, but they ain’t nothing either. And they don’t require you to complement the admitter at all.

  22. I hope the dean of every law school with which a contributor to this blog is associated, and the chancellor or president of every institution with which a relevant law school is associated, is reading the Volokh Conspiracy.

    1. You think the Conspirators ought to be ‘cancelled’? Fired? Blacklisted?

      I doubt any of them (the Conspirators or anyone in any position to concern them) are concerned what Artie, the shit-for-brains troll, thinks.

      Carry on, moron.

      1. I think that if they had a shred of decency and ethical comportment about themselves, they’d loudly denounce their comment section.

        It’s not unfair to judge a person by the company they choose to attract and keep.

    2. Arthur….Really? Angling for the ideological version of the Salem witch trials? That ain’t how we do it here. If that is what you want, head south, keep walking until you get to a place called Venezuela. You’ll find what you seem to want there.

      You need to up your game a little. Take a look at poster ‘OpenBordersLiberal-tarian’. S/He makes the same kinds of points you do in a more high-brow manner. Seriously, go take a look. I think you’d be devastatingly effective using OBL’s approach.

      1. I want strong law schools to resist the calls for affirmative action for conservative law professors. Perhaps their recollections of apologies for the conduct of conservative law professors would be adequate, but observations of the blogs those professors operate wouldn’t hurt.

        Heterodox Academy vs. observed reality. May the better ideas win.

  23. Barr’s going to have a hard time rolling back into a partner position at Kirkland if he doesn’t distance himself somewhat from Trump’s craziness. He’s not going down with the ship, like Giuliani is.

    1. You forgot to include “because the Left is going to try to ‘cancel’ him because that is what they do to people who don’t march to their orders.”

  24. This is fun.

    I have to admit, though, that of all the sad but totally expected descent into crazytown … the one I wasn’t expecting was the Brett Special.

    The widespread and systemic fraud was, in fact, people following lawful court orders. That …. that’s a new one. I’m not even mad, I’m impressed that we have somehow gotten to this point.

    Following the law … is now widespread and systemic fraud. It’s almost beautiful in its Trumpiness. 🙂

  25. Bonus fun fact!

    November (you know, after the election) is the BEST FUNDRAISING MONTH Trump has ever had.

    Really. Almost $100 million more than September, when he was still trying to get elected.

    And the best thing? That money people are sending in for his “Election Defense Fund” (not a real thing) – it’s not going to the BS lawsuits. It’s going to Trump … sorry, to a new PAC he set up.

    It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad, and so predictable.

    1. Give him credit. He has successfully recycled the entire business plan from Trump University.

      1. I mean, I guess I give him credit? I just … it’s sad that so very many people willingly buy into the grift.

        I kinda sorta knew it, but it’s still sad.

        1. It’s very sad, and it doesn’t bode well for the future of the country that such a large number of people are not just willing to believe Trump’s assertions that the election was rigged; they’re willing to give him money as a result. After Nixon resigned, we were able to bind up our wounds and return to a “normal” political environment, thanks to 2 moderate (albeit flawed) Presidents — Ford and Carter. Doesn’t seem like it’s gonna happen this time.

          1. If you like fiction, there is an interesting book out by Neal Stephenson, called Fall. In it, he examines a post truth society in which the internet has been hopelessly compromised by deep fakes and algorithms that perpetually turn out fake news. America becomes divided into mainstream America, which sticks near the freeways, and “ameristan” where tactical jesus reigns supreme and from which all the educated people have fled. The whole system is based on which “feed” (edited data streams) one subscribes to. The younger characters ask the older ones about the days of Dan Rather and a universal narrative.

            Stephenson has been rather prescient in some of his other works.

Please to post comments